Usage Intensity of a Relapse Prevention Program and Its Relation to Symptom Severity in Remitted Patients With Anxiety and Depression: Pre-Post Study.

BACKGROUND: Given that relapse is common in patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders, relapse prevention is needed in the maintenance phase. Although existing psychological relapse prevention interventions have proven to be effective, they are not explicitly based on patients' preferences. Hence, we developed a blended relapse prevention program based on patients' preferences, which was delivered in primary care practices by mental health professionals (MHPs). This program comprises contact with MHPs, completion of core and optional online modules (including a relapse prevention plan), and keeping a mood and anxiety diary in which patients can monitor their symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to provide insight into (1) usage intensity of the program (over time), (2) the course of symptoms during the 9 months of the study, and (3) the association between usage intensity and the course of symptoms. METHODS: The Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression (GET READY) program was guided by 54 MHPs working in primary care practices. Patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, were collected via questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 months. Log data were collected to assess the usage intensity of the program. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients participated in the study. Twenty-seven patients (23.9%) met the criteria for the minimal usage intensity measure. The core modules were used by ≥70% of the patients, while the optional modules were used by <40% of the patients. Usage decreased quickly over time. Anxiety and depressive symptoms remained stable across the total sample; a minority of 15% (12/79) of patients experienced a relapse in their anxiety symptoms, while 10% (8/79) experienced a relapse in their depressive symptoms. Generalized estimating equations analysis indicated a significant association between more frequent face-to-face contact with the MHPs and an increase in both anxiety symptoms (ß=.84, 95% CI .39-1.29) and depressive symptoms (ß=1.12, 95% CI 0.45-1.79). Diary entries and the number of completed modules were not significantly associated with the course of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Although the core modules of the GET READY program were used by most of the patients and all patients saw an MHP at least once, usage decreased quickly over time. Most patients remained stable while participating in the study. The significant association between the frequency of contact and the course of symptoms most likely indicates that those who received more support had more symptoms, and thus, it is questionable whether the support offered by the program was sufficient to prevent these patients from relapsing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12888-019-2034-6.

Evaluation of a Blended Relapse Prevention Program for Anxiety and Depression in General Practice: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Existing studies have yet to investigate the perspectives of patients and professionals concerning relapse prevention programs for patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders in primary care. User opinions should be considered when optimizing the use and implementation of interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the GET READY relapse prevention programs for patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders in general practice. METHODS: Semistructured interviews (N=26) and focus group interviews (N=2) with patients and mental health professionals (MHPs) in the Netherlands were performed. Patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders and their MHPs who participated in the GET READY study were interviewed individually. Findings from the interviews were tested in focus group interviews with patients and MHPs. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants were positive about the program because it created awareness of relapse risks. Lack of motivation, lack of recognizability, lack of support from the MHP, and symptom severity (too low or too high) appeared to be limiting factors in the use of the program. MHPs play a crucial role in motivating and supporting patients in relapse prevention. The perspectives of patients and MHPs were largely in accordance, although they had different perspectives concerning responsibilities for taking initiative. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the GET READY program was challenging. Guidance from MHPs should be offered for relapse prevention programs based on eHealth. Both MHPs and patients should align their expectations concerning responsibilities in advance to ensure optimal usage. Usage of blended relapse prevention programs may be further enhanced by diagnosis-specific programs and easily accessible support from MHPs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12888-019-2034-6.

Prevalence and course of subthreshold anxiety disorder in the general population: A three-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the prevalence, course and risk indicators of subthreshold anxiety disorder to determine the necessity and possible risk indicators for interventions. METHODS: Data were derived from the 'Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2' (NEMESIS-2), a psychiatric epidemiological cohort study among the general population (n = 4528). This study assessed prevalence, characteristics, and three-year course of subthreshold anxiety disorder (n = 521) in adults, and compared them to a no anxiety group (n = 3832) and an anxiety disorder group (n = 175). Risk indicators for persistent and progressive subthreshold anxiety disorder were also explored, including socio-demographics, vulnerability factors, psychopathology, physical health and functioning. RESULTS: The three-year prevalence of subthreshold anxiety disorder was 11.4%. At three-year follow-up, 57.3% had improved, 29.0% had persistent subthreshold anxiety disorder and 13.8% had progressed to a full-blown anxiety disorder. Prevalence, characteristics and course of subthreshold anxiety disorder were in between both comparison groups. Risk indicators for persistent course partly overlapped with those for progressive course and included vulnerability and psychopathological factors, and diminished functioning. LIMITATIONS: Course analysis were restricted to the development of anxiety disorders, other mental disorders were not assessed. Moreover, due to the naturalistic design of the study the impact of treatment on course cannot be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold anxiety disorder is relatively prevalent and at three-year follow-up a substantial part of respondents experienced persistent symptoms or had progressed into an anxiety disorder. Risk indicators like reduced functioning may help to identify these persons for (preventative) treatment and hence reduce functional limitations and disease burden.

Collaborative Care for Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

(Reprinted with permission from BMC Family Practice (2016) 17:62).

Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating collaborative care for anxiety disorders are recently emerging. A systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of collaborative care for adult patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is therefore warranted. METHODS: A literature search was performed. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Psycinfo, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of collaborative care for adult primary care patients with an anxiety disorder, compared to care as usual or another intervention. Synthesis methods: Standardized mean differences (SMD) on an anxiety scale closest to twelve months follow-up were calculated and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3073 studies found, seven studies were included with a total of 2105 participants. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. Collaborative care was superior to care as usual, with a small effect size (SMD = 0.35 95 % CI 0.14-0.56) for all anxiety disorders combined and a moderate effect size (SMD = 0.59, 95 % CI 0.41-0.78) in a subgroup analysis (five studies) on patients with panic disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care seems to be a promising strategy for improving primary care for anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder. However, the number of studies is still small and further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness in other anxiety disorders.